Collecting Gentrification & Demographic Change: What This Collection Means & Why


 
            Gentrification is typically discussed abstractly, and presented as an urban social evil. Yet gentrification is a highly material process, and current gentrification in Chicago is transforming the demography and face of the city. The purpose of this collection will be to document gentrification as process and show the very material ways in which people’s lives are affected and reshaped. Archaeologists and urban planners focus on the spaces in which people live and have lived, and this collection will allow for an intriguing contemporary archaeology, situating current trends within broader histories of human settlement and population movements. The collection will not offer a value statement on gentrification, but rather explore it as a historically situated practice and examine its effects. By rendering this often abstract idea in material terms, we hope to re-insert people into the process, and to create space for a dialogue about people, the landscape, and changes in the spaces where we live. In addition, this collection can be a productive starting point for dialogue about the city’s history of segregation and racial tensions.
            This collection will enhance the Field’s existing collections and is compatible with the organization’s mission. The Field “is an educational institution concerned with the diversity and relationships in nature and among cultures. It provides collection-based research and learning for greater public understanding and appreciation of the world in which we live.”[1] Collecting artifacts related to contemporary gentrification in Chicago offers a material basis for discussions of relationships between communities within the city, valuing diversity by bringing this topic into public view rather than allowing it to be an undiscussed and unacknowledged byproduct of privilege and class difference. In addition, the collection proposed here will be acquired with community involvement and input, in line with the museum’s commitment to collaborative collecting. The gentrification collection also neatly aligns with the mission of the Center for Cultural Understanding and Change in fostering dialogue between different Chicago communities. It also simultaneously documents for posterity the massive population shifts within the city. These population shifts also result in expansion or redirection of infrastructural projects, thereby changing the physical and natural landscape of the city and the ways in which Chicago residents interact with it. In exhibiting this broad base of impact, the collection will be relevant for all residents as well as developing broad-based understanding about gentrification as a general process, which occurs in many places throughout the world.
            Research performed on this collection could further existing scholarship in a number of areas, and I propose a series of successive interpretive frames for understanding the collection. To ground the exhibition, we can begin with analysis of the material and tangible drawn from archaeological theory. Research on this proposed collection would further an understanding of commodities and commodity chains by tracing the “social lives” of material objects in homes as those homes move (Appadurai, 1986) and offering archaeological insights in the tradition of the chaîne opératoire. While using a culture history approach can describe these materials, “it cannot account for either stability or change” so it will be important to incorporate a processual approach as well (Berger, 95). A processual lens can shed light on trends in historic preservation and new construction to nuance understandings of how people’s homes, as private spaces, shift according to the city’s political economic context. This collection can also be productively understood through a Marxist framework, exploring how class conflict through the material. Simultaneously, symbolic and semiotic approaches can help nuance how audiences interpret these objects on display, and highlight the ways that the objects carry multiple meanings and valences for different constituencies.           
In addition, the data generated will contribute to scholarly discussions of human geography, migration, and resettlement on a micro-scale and deepen anthropological knowledge about cities. The material record, combined with the ethnographic record in oral histories, will allow for a deeper understanding of the very real ways in which Chicago residents’ lives are impacted by these shifts. Furthermore, by analyzing the resituating of workers, schools, and businesses, the collection offers policy makers vital information about their constituents and suggestions for improvements to transportation infrastructures and public works based upon these redistributed demographies.
            On display, the collections will represent how human societies change over time, a primary preoccupation of anthropology. As an exhibition, the collection could also debunk myths about Chicago residents (on both sides of gentrification) and help foster communication about class in America, hopefully sparking dialogue and progress here in Chicago. Furthermore, the collection will show a material record of the historical processes of change that are transforming Chicago as a city, contributing to the Field’s ongoing documentation of these changes, beginning with the Chicago World’s Fair, to the shuttering of the steel mills, to today’s changing urban demography.[2] By putting the exhibition on display, it is highly likely that the Field will attract new audiences from the Chicago area, as well as develop fruitful new partnerships with Chicago-area schools, urban planners, and local politicians.
The particular types of objects should be selected in coordination with people on both sides of these demographic shifts. One method could be to collect artifacts and representative objects, decor and furniture to recreate and stage rooms in homes (which the Brooklyn Museum has done for various historical periods[3]), showing the contrast between previous living spaces and the new ones. In this way, we can attempt to showcase the materiality and spatiality of these changes. A more robust description of items to be collected would be developed in collaboration with residents impacted by gentrification (both incoming and outgoing). While we can predict some objects and ways in which to present this phenomenon, we seek vital knowledge, experience, and input from our community.
In addition to those objects described above, the collection could feasibly include oral histories of former and current residents and small business owners; images, murals and objects from public housing projects; archival and current photographs; news reports; legal codes and zoning regulations; demographic maps by class and race[4]; blueprints for homes and neighborhoods; and transportation/commute maps to work and school.[5] Some of the “objects” for the collections are easily obtained, such as news reports, maps, etc, because these objects pose an issue of copyright and reproduction, rather than physical purchase and acquisition.
            In consultation with the related communities, the Field can present the exhibition using polyvocal interpretive strategies. By including, for example, audio clips of a former resident describing her sentiments toward her previous resident alongside urban planners’ commentary about why they arranged those spaces in a particular way, we can present multiple perspectives on the same object or display, thereby showcasing semiotic and symbolic approaches in our exhibition strategy. We can also link to other similar objects in the Field’s other exhibitions, by noting function and encouraging cross-contextual comparison as a method of demonstrating how the affiliated meanings of objects vary by context.
            In sum, a collection centered around gentrification would contribute to scholarly research on urban populations, cities, homes and private spaces, political economic processes, urban planning, and archaeology. By using archaeological, semiotic and symbolic approaches in display, the Field can nuance the story of gentrification, build new audiences, and document transitions in its home city of Chicago. Through collaborative collecting strategies, the Field is positioned to forge a more inclusive, dialogic future for the city.  


Scholarly literature & works cited

Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, A. A. (2009). What objects mean. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Jacobs, J. (1992 [1961]). The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York, NY:  Vintage Books.

Ochs, E. and Kremer-Sadlik, T. (2013). Fast-Forward Family: Home, Work and Relationships in Middle-Class America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.



[4] As an example, see Bill Rankin’s map of Chicago at http://www.radicalcartography.net/index.html?chicagodots
[5] A recent project run by anthropologist Elinor Ochs at UCLA, entitled “Fast Forward Family,” documented the homes of middle class Americans in Los Angeles, using archaeological and linguistic anthropological approaches and unique documentary techniques.

No comments:

Post a Comment